This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Standard Insurance v. Cuaresma,[38] the ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court was reversed by the Regional Trial Court. The latter was then sustained by the Court of Appeals. On review, this court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. This court noted that the Metropolitan Trial Court erroneously gave weight to the traffic accident investigation report presented by the petitioner as proof of the proximate cause of the damage sustained by a motor vehicle. | |||||
|
2016-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Thus, while petitioner presented its assured to testify on the events that transpired during the vehicular collision, his lone testimony, unsupported by other preponderant evidence, fails to sufficiently establish petitioner's claim that respondents' negligence was, indeed, the proximate cause of the damage sustained by Cham's vehicle.[43] [Emphasis supplied] | |||||